Rhodes and Repatriation Commission [1999] AATA 72 (5 February 1999)

Last Updated: 17 February 1999

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [1999] AATA 72

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL)

N° V96/891

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION)

DOROTHY AURELIA RHODES

Applicant

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal: Deputy President G.L. McDonald

Date: 5 February 1999

Place: Melbourne

Decision: The decision under review is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the respondent with a direction that the veteran's death was war-caused and the applicant is entitled to be paid a widow's pension under the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

(sgd) G.L. McDonald

Deputy President

VETERANS' AFFAIRS - widow claims veteran's death from prostate cancer - whether causally related to veteran's war service - application of Statement of Principle

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss.33(1), 37

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss.13, 120(4), 120B, 196B(14)

Holthouse v Repatriation Commission

(unreported: Federal Court, Davies J, delivered 24 June 1982)

Phillippi and Repatriation Commission (Decision Nº 12,108, delivered 8 August 1997)

Repatriation Commission v Bendy (1989) 18 ALD 144

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 February 1999 Deputy President G.L. McDonald

1. The applicant is appealing against a decision of the Veterans' Review Board ("the VRB") dated 6 May 1996, which affirmed an earlier decision of the Repatriation Commission that the applicant, a widow, was not entitled to receive a pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act"). The reason for the refusal was that the death of her husband, the veteran, from metastatic prostate cancer was determined not to be causally related to his war service.

2. The applicant was initially represented by Mr D. Hanger, of counsel, and subsequently by Mr D. McIntosh, of counsel. The applicant, Mrs Rhodes, and the veteran's sister, Mrs D. Burnett; Ms A. Wailes, a nutritional consultant and dietitian; and Dr D. Sime, a consultant psychiatrist; prepared witness statements/reports and gave oral evidence in support of the application. Initially, Ms K. Reichelt and subsequently Mr K. Rudge, departmental advocates, appeared for the respondent. Dr K. Byrne, a clinical and forensic psychologist, prepared a report and gave oral evidence for the respondent. The Tribunal had before it the documents filed for the purposes of s.37 (the "T" documents) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the AAT Act") and The Davidson Nutrient Intake Study, being A Comparison of Mean Nutrient and Component Intakes Serving (Army) and Civilian Population 1942-1946 (dated May 1988) as well as a report from Dr R. English entitled "Animal Fat in the Australian Diet Including The Armed Services' Rations in World War 2 ([dated] August 1998)".

3. Section 13 of the Act provides eligibility for payment of a pension where the death of a veteran is war-caused. In this case the death will be war-caused if it ". . . iarose out of, or was attributable to, any eligible war service rendered by the veteran" (s.8(1)(b)). The veteran was born in Australia on 6 October 1921, he left school at 14 years of age and commenced an apprenticeship as a french polisher, in which capacity he worked until he enlisted in the Australian Army on 5 November 1941. He served in the Australian Army until 5 April 1946 and, accordingly, he has eligible war service (s.7(1)(c)). The history of the veteran's war service postings (set out at T3, p.6) proved difficult to interpret. However, it emerged during the course of the hearing, and the Tribunal accepts, that the veteran spent 6 months at Mount Martha in Victoria, 18 months at Fremantle/Rottnest in Western Australia, 12 months in Meekatharra in Western Australia and 2 x 6 month terms in Queensland.

4. Since the veteran has eligible, but not operational, service the claim is to be decided to the "reasonable satisfaction" of the Tribunal (s.120(4)). "Reasonable satisfaction" is to be assessed by reference to a Statement of Principles ("SoP") published by the Repatriation Medical Authority (s.120B(1)(a)). Section 120B(3) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied both that the material raises a connection between the death of the veteran and some particular service rendered by the veteran, and that there is a SoP in place. In this case a "connection" will be made out if the Tribunal is satisfied that, during the time of the veteran's Army service, he developed a dietary habit involving a higher fat intake, which habit continued in the post-war period until the diagnosis of the medical condition which resulted in his death.

5. Relevantly the SoP dealing with prostate cancer is found in Instrument N° 96 of 1995 as amended by Instrument N° 192 of 1996, and is as follows:

"1. Being of the view that, on the sound medical-scientific evidence available to the Repatriation Medical Authority, it is more probable than not that malignant neoplasm of the prostate and death from malignant neoplasm of the prostate can be related to eligible war service (other than operational service) rendered by veterans and defence service (other than hazardous service) rendered by members of the Forces, the Repatriation Medical Authority determines, under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, that the factor that must exist before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, malignant neoplasm of the prostate or death from malignant neoplasm of the prostate is connected with the circumstances of that service, is:

(a) increasing animal fat consumption by at least 40%, and to at least 70gm/day for at least 25 years before the clinical onset of malignant neoplasm of the prostate; or

(b) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for malignant neoplasm of the prostate; . . . ."

Paragraph 4 of the SoP defines the meaning of "animal fat" as follows:

"(a) beef, veal, pork, mutton or lamb or offal which may be in any form, for example, main dish, sandwich or mixed dish; in preserved meats, ham, frankfurters, sausages, salami, bologna, deli meat items, lard and bacon; and

(b) dairy products, for example: milk, cream, sour cream, sherbet or ice milk, icecream, yogurt, cottage cheese, ricotta cheese, cream cheese, other cheese and butter;"

6. Paragraph 2 of the SoP requires the factors set out in paragraphs 1(a) and (b) to be "related to any service rendered by a person". Section 196B(14) of the Act sets out what is meant by the phrase "related to service", and is relevantly in the following terms:

" 196B (14) A factor causing, or contributing to, an injury, disease or death is related to service rendered by a person if:

. . .

(b) it arose out of, or was attributable to, that service; or

. . .

(d) it was contributed to in a material degree by, or was aggravated by, that service; or

. . .

(f) in the case of a factor causing, or contributing to, a disease--it would not have occurred:

(i) but for the rendering of that service by the person; or

(ii) but for changes in the person's environment consequent upon his or her having rendered that service; or

(g) in the case of a factor causing, or contributing to, the death of a person--it was due to an accident that would not have occurred, or to a disease that would not have been contracted:

(i) but for the rendering of that service by the person; or

(ii) but for changes in the person's environment consequent upon his or her having rendered that service."

There is no reason not to apply the definition contained in the Act to substantially the same phrase where that phrase is used in a SoP. The addition of the word "any" in the SoP does not, in the view of the Tribunal, alter the approach which should be taken to the interpretation of the phrase. It was conceded by Mr McIntosh that it would be more difficult for the applicant to succeed under sub-clauses (f) and/or (g) and he relied on (b) and (d) as being the only realistic factors which could give rise to a relationship. Accordingly, the Tribunal will address itself to sub-sections (b) and (d) only.

7. It is not disputed, and the death certificate attests, that the veteran died on 24 September 1994 from malignant neoplasm of the prostate (T4). The Tribunal accepts this as being the case.

8. It was Mrs Rhodes's evidence that she and her husband, the veteran, were married on 28 November 1947. She knew her husband before he enlisted in the Army - he had stayed for short periods on her parents' farm - but they did not form a close relationship until sometime in late 1946. She said that her husband had come from a large family and when growing up he did not have access to rich foods. She said that during the war he was stationed for a pe riod of four years in Western Australia, including time at Fremantle and on Rottnest Island, off the coast of Western Australia. There he had access to Army rations as well as "little bit extras all the time". She stated that he was given a lot of chocolate. It was her evidence that her husband worked after his discharge from the Army, initially, as a house painter and for the eight years prior to his retirement, he was a full-time instructor with the St Johns Ambulance. She said that during their marriage her husband enjoyed and consumed large quantities of dairy products, including milk, cream and cheese. She said that the typical breakfast was cereal with milk on it, a further pint of milk would be taken to work with biscuits and cheese with a lunch of a sandwich containing meat or cheese or tomato: that upon arrival home from work the veteran would drink a cup of milk coffee, followed by an evening meal of meat and vegetables, followed by desserts including cream and that he would have a cup of milo before going to bed at night. She said that when her husband did the cooking, which he quite enjoyed, he would fry things like chips and steak. It was Mrs Rhodes's evidence that her husband put on weight while he was in the Army, but thereafter remained stable until the cancer affected him.

9. It was Mrs Burnett's evidence that her brother, the veteran, lived at home until he enlisted. She said that her parents were poor and supported six children. Although she was younger than the veteran, she could recall as a child being given occasional meat stews. She said that the stews did not contain much meat, but were made up of vegetables which the family cultivated. Mrs Burnett said that when her mother was preparing mutton stew she was always careful to remove any fat. She said, "we never had cheeses or cream" and the only milk the children had was on a bowl of porridge in the morning and sometimes milk was mixed in puddings. She described it as a filling diet but nothing overly fatty. Mrs Burnett could recall the veteran telling their mother that he had access to bacon and eggs, meats and cheeses while stationed on Rottnest Island. Mrs Burnett said that the veteran took a liking to cooked breakfasts which he continued, sometimes adding sausages, after he returned from completing his service. Mrs Burnett could recall that the family's diet improved after the war as "money was a bit better then with mum and dad" (trans, p.16, 24.9.97). The veteran no doubt participated in this better diet in the period between the end of the veteran's Army service and his marriage to the applicant, being a period of approximately 18 months.

10. It was the evidence of Dr Byrne that it was part of a psychologist's field to study human behaviour, including dietary behaviour. It was his evidence that there was research showing complex phenomenon connected with the behaviour of eating which was dependent on many factors, including-

* childhood patterns of eating,

* associations made in a person's mind connecting food with the state of pleasure,

* a person's belief over whether food was healthy or not healthy,

* internal behaviour associated with monitoring of eating, i.e. can a person control their eating behaviour?

* the type of food eaten by people that a person lives with, and

* the type of food which society regards as normal or appropriate.

It was Dr Byrne's evidence that all of the above factors, combined with the unique character of the individual, determine that person's eating habits.

11. In the instant case Dr Byrne accepted that the veteran would have been exposed to different foods during Army service than he had experienced prior to undertaking that service. In his report of 14 May 1998 (exh 3, p.6, para 11.3) he concluded:

"From the history provided, it seems clear that Mr Rhodes' diet changed somewhat when he joined the Army, in that he began to eat bacon, eggs and fried bread for breakfast, and generally had access to more dairy products and meats than were available during his upbringing."

Dr Byrne opined that the veteran's food habits would have changed after the war as the result of the veteran's improved economic conditions along with different eating habits which developed post war than were present either prior to or during the war. Dr Byrne said other likely factors which would influence the veteran's dietary habits were the fact that the veteran's wife came from a farming background, and was more use to cooking meat and dairy products coupled with the fact that the veteran had had a somewhat impoverished background, but could after the war enjoy food as a symbol of leaving that poverty behind. He also felt that the veteran's food habits were, in part, connected with pleasure that the veteran derived from eating food accompanied at that time by a general lack of appreciation of associating danger to health from the eating of richer foods. Dr Byrne felt that these factors may also be combined with a perceived need of the veteran, engaged as he was in manual labour (painting houses), that he needed a high intake of meat to keep his strength up in order to carry out his work. It was Dr Byrne's conclusion that, since it was likely that the veteran's diet would have changed after the war regardless of his food eating habits developed through the war, the veteran's condition could not be related to his Army service.

12. The Tribunal had before it a report dated 5 November 1998 from Dr Sime after he had interviewed both Mrs Rhodes and Mrs Burnett (exh B). Dr Sime also had a copy of Dr Byrnes's report (exh 3) with which Dr Sime said that he disagreed. Dr Sime opined:

". . .

2. In contrast with Dr. Byrne's opinion that his [i.e. the veteran's] high animal fat diet was set off by the influence of his wife who was brought up on a farm, my findings very strongly suggest that the pattern of his high animal fat diet was set off during his four year Army service on Rottnest Island as a gunner.

3. Mrs. Rhodes in particular notes his eating habits in terms of this high animal fat diet was already present when they married and she merely continued to follow his wishes. Mr. Rhodes' sister also indicated that she referred to having a great time when he was working as a gunner and that this included extra food that he and his mates were obtaining with the support of shopkeepers on the Island and that his taste for fatty foods had started then." (exh B, p.5)

However, in cross-examination Dr Sime agreed that a "balance" of influences would have affected the veteran's eating habits, including his wife's cooking ability, her background on a farm, the veteran's food deprivation prior to the war and the more ready availability of fatty foods after the war. The Tribunal notes that Dr Sime was misinformed as to the time the veteran spent on Rottnest Island as part of his war service. Further, Dr Sime assumed that the veteran's wife's cooking was the only factor identified as being considered as of significance by Dr Byrne whereas in fact Dr Byrne also concluded other factors were relevant (e.g. the general dietary change in post-war Australia which led to a high intake of fat than was the case prior to the war).

13. The Tribunal had before it a report by Dr Davidson, dated May 1988. The report was admitted by consent and Dr Davidson was not cross-examined. That report compared, inter alia, the daily consumption of total fat and dietary fibre of adult males in the civilian population with those serving in the Army in Australia for the period 1942-1946. Dr Davidson concluded that ". . . the mean content of fat and energy was slightly greater in the Defence Force diets than in the civilian diet" (exh 1, p.2). Deputy President Gerber and Brigadier Ermert commented in Phillippi and Repatriation Commission (Decision Nº 12,108, delivered on 8 August 1997) in relation to the Davidson report, at para 40:

". . . [it] is a retrospective study, comparing the mean nutrient and component intakes for adult males in the civilian population with members of the Australian Army serving in Australia, the Pacific region and the Middle East between the years 1942 and 1946. Put bluntly, it is opinion evidence, untested in cross-examination, based on a retrospective study undertaken more than 40 years after the event, arrived at on limited data and relying on various assumptions concerning food type, quantity, edible portion, original nutrient and component levels and cooking losses. . . . ."

The comments by the Tribunal in Phillippi remain relevant and apposite in the present context.

14. Dr English's report, dated August 1998, is stated to be a scientific review carried out for the respondent department to ". . . analyse and report on the documentation available on the level of animal fat in the Australian diet with particular reference to the level pre-World War 2, during the war years 1939-1945 in the armed services' and civilian diets, immediately post-World War 2, and then until the present time" (exh 2, p.(i)). That report was also admitted by consent and Dr English was not cross-examined with respect to her findings. Based on the results of a national household dietary survey, conducted in 1936-1938, by the National Advisory Council on nutrition, Dr English estimated that the level of animal fat intake in civilian male diet prior to World War 2 was high (within the range of 114-130 grams per head per day). Dr English concluded that the Service rations for personnel serving in Australia contained an animal fat content of 78.5 to 88.8 per cent of the civilian diet for the same period. In the post-war period Dr English estimated that there was a major decrease in intake of both total and animal fats in the Australian community since the 1944 household dietary survey (in adult men it has decreased from an estimated 122.0 grams to 63.4 grams in 1983 and further to 56.8 grams per head per day in 1995-1996 (the average intake for older men of a comparable age to World War 2 veterans is estimated as 55.3 grams in 1983 and 49.9 grams/head/day in 1995-1996)). While she concedes that there is no scientifically documented evidence to support the proposition, Dr English felt it was likely that, when information is given by a surrogate for a deceased person concerning that deceased person's dietary habits, errors, including unintentional elaboration with distortion of memory, may occur. The English report concluded that, while there was some evidence to support exposure to service rations inducing a food behavioural change to a diet high in animal fats, this was but one among many complex factors affecting an individual's food patterns and that it would be

". . . considered speculative to place much weight on a period of military service as responsible for food consumption patterns maintained for a minimum period of 20 years, . . . It is proposed that such a link can only be described as tenuous, and unsupported by a reasonable level of evidence." (exh 2, p.20)

15. Both the Davidson and English Reports are general in nature and, as Dr Davidson appreciated, ". . . are only meaningful when used on a comparative basis . . ." (exh 1, p.3). It is necessary for the Tribunal to apply the specific evidence relating to the individual veteran when considering the SoP. That that evidence may result in a different outcome from conclusions drawn from general statistical reports does not affect either the validity of that general statistical information any more than those general statistical results necessarily reflect adversely on the credit of evidence given in the case of an individual veteran.

16. The SoP requires the decision-maker to be satisfied as to any increase in animal fat consumption over a lengthy period and with some particularity. At the conclusion of the abovementioned evidence, the Tribunal felt that the applicant needed to be given the opportunity to provide more specific evidence addressing the latter point. Consequently, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under the provisions of s.33(1) of the AAT Act and adjourned the matter to enable, in as far as was possible, the applicant to obtain some more specific evidence with respect to the veteran's likely animal fat intake. Ms Wailes, a dietician, provided a report and subsequently gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. On the information given by Mrs Rhodes as to the veteran's eating habits, Ms Wailes prepared the following chart showing, inter alia, the veteran's saturated (being equivalent of animal) fat intake for the stated periods as follows:

Nutrient Before the War Time Period During the War Diagnosis (Date not known)

Energy, Cals/day 1148 1904 3523

Fat Total, g/day 47.5 101.5 171.8

Saturated Fat, g/day 24.9 50.1 94.5

Fibre, g/day 15.9 20.9 27.0

(exh A, p.1) "

Ms Wailes concluded that, since the veteran gained weight during the war and remained a "solid" build thereafter,

". . . These figures indicate that during the period of the war a significant increase in animal fat intake occurred. This doubled and continued increasing over the years, an increase of 69% to the period of diagnosis. . . . ."

In cross-examination Ms Wailes agreed that other factors would also have influenced the veteran's post-war dietary habits, e.g. his wife's pattern of food preparation and consumption. Dr English's report was put to Ms Wailes who agreed that that report demonstrated a pattern inconsistent with Ms Wailes's findings with respect to the veteran. Ms Wailes pointed out that Dr English's report was based on a statistical conclusion and, while she did not disagree with its conclusions, she maintained it was clear that the contents did not reflect the information provided in the case of this particular veteran.

17. Mr Rudge submitted that there must be some causal connection established to link the experience of a veteran's war service to his subsequent medical condition (see Davies J in Holthouse and Repatriation Commission (unreported decision of the Federal Court, delivered on 24 June 1982)). In Mr Rudge's submission the post-war economic circumstances and the influence of the veteran's wife culinary habits, combined with the type of work the veteran carried out and the diet required, or thought to be required, to sustain him in that work, were the compelling influences on the veteran's post-war diet and there were no causal relationship between his military service and that diet. He submitted that the dietary pattern was the same for all soldiers and, as shown by Dr English's report, contained in fact less fat than the civilian diet during the time of World War 2. Consequently, he submitted it could not be said that, on the balance of probabilities, the veteran had a 40 per cent increase to at least 70 grams per day over a period of at least 25 years and that that increase was contributed to in a material degree by the veteran's war service.

18. On the other hand, Mr McIntosh pointed out that the veteran's war diet was a factor amongst a number of factors relating to the causation of the veteran's conditions, including his prostate cancer and that was all that the applicant had to establish. The other factors such as post-war prosperity, the veteran's wife's cooking habits, etc, whilst obviously irrelevant and whilst their importance as factors contributing to the development of the veteran's prostate cancer condition may have increased over the years, those factors did not displace the dietary change to a fat rich diet which, he submitted, the evidence showed first occurred during the veteran's war service. It was this in his submission which led to the veteran increasing his fat intake to, at least, the level set out in the SoP, that that fat intake persisted for the 25 year period required by the SoP and, accordingly, the necessary causal relationship between the veteran developing prostate cancer and his military service had been established.

19. The Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence of Dr Byrne, Dr Sime and Ms Wailes, as confirmed in Dr English's report, that a number of interrelated factors influence an individual's dietary habit. Dr Byrne did not comment on whether there was, or may be, a variation in importance attributed to the various factors he identified as influencing a person's dietary habit. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest such a variation can be determined either generally or in an individual case - it may well amount to a matter of individual response as to which factors assume more or less importance in the development of an individual's dietary habit. Since it was the widow's evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that, despite spending her childhood on a dairy farm, she did not enjoy milk products (i.e. milk products containing high fat content) as part of her diet, it is somewhat speculative for Dr Byrne to have concluded (as he did in his report of 14 May 1998 (exh 3, p.6, para 1.1)) that it was a combination of the veteran's wife's eating habits and preferences along with the post-war economic changes which led to the veteran enjoying a diet high in fat during the post-war period. Inasfar as Dr Byrne identified the proposition that there was a higher intake of fat in the post-war Australian civilian diet than was evident in the pre-war and war years, the Tribunal is able to accept that as a general proposition. While the Tribunal is able to accept Dr Byrne's general evidence on this latter aspect, it does not follow that other influences, including the dietary habits developed by the veteran during his war service, are not of at least equal importance.

20. As Ms Wailes pointed out, the results of the survey conducted by Dr Davidson (and the Tribunal also concludes the same is applicable to the survey conducted by Dr English), while providing useful comparative statistical information, does not provide any conclusive answers in the case of a particular individual. That evidence must be assessed on a case by case basis. In this case the Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence of the veteran's sister, Mrs Burnett, that, prior to his enlistment, the veteran did not enjoy a diet high in (animal) fat. The evidence of the veteran's widow, despite her apparently mistaken recall that the veteran was stationed on Rottnest Island for a 4 year period whereas in fact the period was 18 months, along with the evidence of Mrs Burnett as to the veteran's immediate post-war dietary intake, leave the Tribunal satisfied that, during the war and after the war, throughout the period leading to the diagnosis of his prostate condition, the veteran developed and continued with a diet high in animal fat. Even allowing for recall difficulty, which, as Dr English pointed out in her report, may be experienced by information given by a surrogate of the deceased person (exh 2, p.(iii)), the Tribunal is satisfied based on Ms Wailes's calculation arising from the veteran's widow's evidence that factor 1(a) of the Amended Statement of Principles has been met, i.e. that the veteran experienced an increase in animal fat consumption by at least 40 per cent to at least 70 grams per day for at least 25 years before the clinical onset of the condition. Dr Hadley, a surgeon, reported the commencement of the veteran's prostate condition as occurring in 1989 (T6, p.19). The death certificate identifies the duration of the prostate cancer as being four years which would place its onset at 1990. The Tribunal accepts from the evidence of the applicant that the veteran's high fat diet extended over the 25 year period immediately prior to the clinical onset of the condition in 1989 or 1990.

21. Given the Tribunal's finding that, prior to World War 2, the veteran did not enjoy a high animal fat diet and there was an increase in his animal fat consumption during the war, that the veteran continued to eat fatty foods after the war and did not return to his pre-war dietary pattern, the Tribunal is satisfied that the increase in fat intake is, at least, one of the factors related to the development of the veteran's disease. A factor contributing to the disease to be related to the war service does not need to be solely, or exclusively, related. It may be one of a number of factors. Certainly the evidence leaves the Tribunal satisfied that the veteran's first exposure to foods high in animal fat on a consistent and habit forming basis arose out of his war service. It did not arise as the result of his post-war dietary habits because by that time it was an established pattern. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that s.196B(14)(d) is satisfied.

22. If the Tribunal is wrong about that, then the Tribunal is satisfied that the dietary habits developed by the veteran during his period of war service contributed in a material degree to the development of his disease. Again, that contribution does not need to be the sole or exclusive contribution, it just needs to be a contribution in a material degree. The reference to the adjectival "material" is, as Davies J pointed out in Repatriation Commission v Bendy (1989) 18 ALD 144 at 146, a reference to materiality in the sense of being pertinent or likely to influence. The Tribunal is satisfied that the change in the veteran's diet arising from the increased fat intake during the period of his war service so that a pattern of high fat intake was established is one of the pertinent factors which has influenced subsequent development of his prostate cancer condition. To that extent, it is, in the opinion of the Tribunal, a contribution in a material degree to the development of that condition.

23. It follows from the above that the applicant's application succeeds. The decision under review is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the respondent with a direction that the veteran's death was war-caused and the applicant is entitled to be paid a widow's pension under the provisions of the Act.

I CERTIFY THAT THIS AND THE FOURTEEN [14] PRECEDING PAGES ARE A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION HEREIN

Of Deputy President G.L. McDonald

(sgd) Catherine Thomas

Dated: 05.02.99 Secretary

Date of Hearing: 24.09.97, 05.11.98

Date of Decision: 05.02.99

Counsel for the respondent: Mr D. McIntosh

Solicitor for the applicant: Messrs De Marchi & Associates

Solicitor for the respondent: Ms K. Reichelt and Mr K. Rudge

Departmental Advocates